I can tell you Sun reasoning.
Sun felt that XML RPC was a generic term and that XML-RPC referred to a
specific implementation of XML RPC. When Dave raised the issue of trademark
infringement, Sun changed the name to XML-based RPC. End of story. Except
that at least one document wasn't modified to reflect the new name. I trust
that the issue have been addressed by now.
Anne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Paulo Gaspar
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 4:11 PM
> To: Joshua Allen; Kurt Cagle; xml-rpc@yahoogroups.com;
> soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com; decentralization@yahoogroups.com;
> xml-dev@lists.xml.org; xml-dist-app@w3.org; Elliotte Rusty Harold
> Cc: Tim O'Reilly
> Subject: RE: Sun and independent developers
>
>
> > Just out of curiosity, is that really true in others experience?
>
> In my experience (and I also read a LOAD about these issues) it is
> just as you say Joshua.
>
> And that choice of expressions (avoiding "XML RPC") may even happen
> because any well informed writer is aware of XML-RPC and wants to
> avoid confusion.
>
> In fact, the only exception I remember is this one from SUN. I just
> wonder if it is because they are not well informed or if it is
> because they do not care about spreading confusion.
>
>
> This episode has some parallel with the recent story of their
> logging API, which was being rushed into existence without any care
> for learning from existing and easily available experience.
>
> In java, Log4J is the "de facto" standard for logging APIs for
> already some time. Log4J incorporates the experience resulting of
> being a widely used Open Source product and of being around since
> 1996.
>
> Log4J is now hosted by an organization (Apache) that SUN has ties
> with, which means that its considerable experience was available
> at no cost and no effort. Besides, Apache even has the additional
> experience of another logging library - Avalon's LogKit.
>
> Still, the initiative (the PUSH) to incorporate all this know how
> had to start from the Apache side. And what I see in the current
> version of the JSR-47 is that many of the remarks made by Ceki
> Gulcu (Log4J main developer), based on that very extensive
> experience and about issues where experience rules, were just
> ignored (e.g.: the amount of logging levels).
> =:o\
>
>
> It looks like many guys from SUN are NOT trying to learn from those
> that came before and worked hard on the same stuff they are just
> starting to address.
>
> These guys are arrogant. They think they know it all just by divine
> inspiration. They despise previous experience.
>
> They do not stand on the shoulders of those that preceded them.
>
> They despise those that preceded them and this issue of abusing the
> "XML-RPC" name is just another sign of that.
>
>
> It is also sad that SUN just ignores respect and politeness, acting
> like their only obligations are the ones dictated by their Legal
> Department.
>
>
> Some pointers:
> JSR-47 Logging API: http://www.jcp.org/jsr/detail/47.jsp
> Log4J: http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/index.html
> LogKit: http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/logkit/index.html
>
>
> Have fun,
> Paulo Gaspar
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 11:06 PM
> > To: Kurt Cagle; paulo.gaspar@krankikom.de; xml-rpc@yahoogroups.com;
> > soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com; decentralization@yahoogroups.com;
> > xml-dev@lists.xml.org; xml-dist-app@w3.org; Elliotte Rusty Harold
> > Cc: Tim O'Reilly
> > Subject: RE: Sun and independent developers
> >
> >
> > >Actually, I think there's a pretty standard general usage.
> >
> > >XML RPC is a generic term that is used to describe any XML based remote
> > >procedure call language, and could just as easily subsume SOAP, for
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, is that really true in others experience? I have
> > personally heard people talk about "XML-based RPC" or "XML Procedure
> > Calls" and many other variations. I do not believe that I have *ever*
> > heard or seen anyone use "XML RPC" to mean "XML-based RPC" (other than
> > in the context of this particular discussion). I would be interested in
> > evidence that this is really such a standard general usage as opposed to
> > something like "XML-based RPC".
>
>